Article Tools

The District Attorney’s Office will not file excessive force or resisting arrest charges related to the incident between Santa Barbara Police Officer Aaron Tudor and DUI suspect Tony Denunzio in the Loreto Plaza parking lot on October 21. While some witnesses said Tudor used excessive force in apprehending Denunzio, Chief Cam Sanchez came out in support of Tudor’s actions, explaining he believes appropriate actions were taken, and that sometimes police work isn’t pretty.

Denunzio, who has two prior alcohol-related driving convictions, was pulled over by Tudor after allegedly changing lanes three times along Las Positas Road without signaling. Denunzio told The Independent he had only one drink at the Boathouse restaurant that night, but his attorney and the DA’s office confirmed Tuesday that a blood sample taken right after the incident showed Denunzio’s blood alcohol content was .09 percent. His attorney, Darryl Genis, questioned the manner in which Denunzio’s blood was drawn, however, and plans to mount a legal attack challenging the sample. Genis is also having his own lab test a sample of Denunzio’s blood drawn at County Jail prior to his client being taken to the hospital.

In the meantime, Denunzio will be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a blood alcohol level above .08 percent, and driving on a suspended driver’s license. He will also face allegations of two prior alcohol-related driving convictions.

Courtesy Photo

Tony Denunzio shortly after his October 2011 arrest for alleged DUI

During the incident, according to witnesses, Tudor — an officer since June 2007 and a member of the department’s drinking and driving team — struck Denunzio with closed fists and kneed him in the ribs, even though Denunzio didn’t appear to be resisting. A police spokesperson said Tudor’s Taser was activated 13 times during the encounter, though it isn’t clear how many times it made contact with Denunzio.

Denunzio, during an interview four days after the incident, showed signs of the encounter — his face was still bruised, his eye red, and his breathing labored from broken ribs. “Why is this being done?” witness Ellen Hunter said Denunzio yelled during the arrest. “Why are you doing this?” Hunter said her husband eventually told her to call 9-1-1 to get Denunzio help. “A police officer is beating up a driver for no reason, and we need help,” she recalled telling dispatch.

Chief Sanchez, in a statement released the week following the altercation, defended Tudor, saying Denunzio wasn’t complying with verbal orders, and that Tudor used palm and knee strikes to gain control over his arrestee. “All of the decisions made and options exercised by the arresting officer that were captured on the video recording were justified standard law enforcement practices given Mr. Denunzio’s resistance,” Sanchez said.

The footage captured by a new dash-cam in Tudor’s patrol car showed parts of the incident. In addition to that video, the DA’s office viewed two other videos as well — one from Gelson’s Market and one taken by a witness. Wednesday, The Independent renewed a public records act request to view these videos.

The DA’s office said there were two divergent views regarding the force utilized by Tudor. “They are both reasonable assessments of the arrest procedure in this case,” it said. In all, there were 13 witnesses who saw all or some of the incident between Tudor and Denunzio. None of those 13 people are police officers. Some characterized Tudor’s actions as appropriate, some did not. “There were some witnesses who saw more, there were witnesses who saw less,” Senior Deputy District Attorney Hilary Dozer said. “There were those who characterized Mr. Denunzio as resisting arrest and not complying with the officer. There were witnesses who felt the officer was not acting in a way consistent with professional police behavior.”

With divergent views among the people who saw what happened, and a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, officials determined that filing charges relating to the altercation was not appropriate.

Tuesday morning, with his significant other sitting in the front row of the courtroom in support, Denunzio pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of domestic battery, stemming from an incident alleged to have taken place prior to Denunzio’s DUI arrest.

With his alleged victim prepared to tell Judge Jim Herman there was no reason for an order banning contact between the two, the judge decided a more substantive hearing was needed, and pushed the matter out. In the meantime, the judge opted to forgo a no contact order, but instead told Denunzio he could not molest, annoy, threaten, or harass the woman. “That’s not a problem, because he’s not going to do that anyway,” Genis said. A December 6 hearing was scheduled to address the order.

Details on the allegation are slim because it is a domestic violence charge. Genis said police were summoned because there was an argument of some sorts, and Denunzio ended up leaving before authorities arrived. He didn’t hit the woman and he didn’t break anything, Genis said. When authorities did arrive, his significant other told them nothing really happened.

After the hearing, Genis repeated a mantra he had stated earlier, saying he believes the charge is designed to drum up the idea that Denunzio is a violent man and was resisting arrest the night of the alleged DUI and subsequent altercation with the police officer. Dozer said he wouldn’t comment on that claim, though he told The Independent a few weeks ago that “if I was a defense lawyer, that’s the kind of spin I’d put out for my client.”

SBPD getting away with it, or the DA has no nads, or the DA is in cahoots? which one is it? I will say Mr. Dozer will call a spade a spade. While I am disappointed with their decision not to prosecute TUDOR, the explanation is reasonable. It would be a cluster#@$% of opinions, lenghty costly trial with a hung jury. I think the civil case will be quite different. They really should release the videos regardless. Gee, maybe Mayor Schneider will intervene?....NOT!

In this specific case, if the arrestee has been found not to have resisted arrest, then logic would say there was excessive force based on eyewitness testimony. An uncorrupt DA's office would have no problems seeing and acting on that.

The DA should charge Tudor and let the jury decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict him. That is the reason we have a system that asks 12 jurors of his peers to make the decision of whether or not Tudor used excessive force.

sbs124-You obviously have zero concept of how our judicial system works. KV-You know it's not that simple.Hell, even I want to see the video's as it appears to those, such as myself that are mostly UNINFORMED, that something was not handled correctly. Actually, since Denunzio and I are both Italian he MUST be innocent...

"The DA should charge Tudor and let the jury decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict him. That is the reason we have a system that asks 12 jurors of his peers to make the decision of whether or not Tudor used excessive force."- sbs124

Juries don't indict suspects. It looks like you're skipping over a step; the indictment. This is where cause is, or is not found by the grand jury to go to trial. If Tudor had been charged, he would likely have been charged with a felony. A suspect charged with a felony has to be indicted before a jury trial is had. Also, if it was found that Tudor acted under "color of law", the FBI would be tasked to investigate, and he would be prosecuted federally, in which case there would be a federal indictment by a federal grand jury.

The DA cannot have it boh ways: in order to justify the use of force, the suspect must resist; if there is no resisting, the use of force is a come. Consequently, either Mr. DeNunzio should be prosecuted for resisting, or Officer Tudor should be prosecuted for Felony Assault.

Its the testimony of the eyewitnesses, all unrelated to the defendant that really makes it all suspiceous (to me at least.) No one wants to handle a sloppy drunk, but aren't police specifically trained on how to do so with minimum drama and force?

Eyewitness accounts of this action are reported to be contradictory. Even the cop hating Left leaning Indy has reported these contradictions. Not surprising since eyewitness accounts are universally variable.Cam-the-man claims he will show the police video to our local media domani/manana/tomorrow. Let's hope he sticks to this date.

This is an open invitation for anyone who witnessed brutal treatment of mr. Denunzio by santa barbara police - and who has been interviewed by the district attorney's office - to appear on the channel 17 television program "JUST BETWEEN US!"Mr. DeNunzio's attorney has already received this invitation.

To contact us, do a Google search on "Just Between Us! Santa Barbara"; on the website, click on "Contact Us" and leave your contact information.

This is the problem with all police brutality claims - the person who has to decide whether or not to charge the officer also has a vested interest in keeping the police department happy because many of their criminal cases they prosecute rely on testimony of police officers, sometimes the same ones they have to decide whether or not to charge.

Cities and municipalities need to come up with a better system of investigating and if necessary, prosecuting such claims. Some sort of third party external investigatory department who ONLY deals with criminal issues related to the police would be a good start. It's simply a conflict of interest to allow a local DA to make such a determination. It's as absurd as allowing a judge to preside over a case involving a family member.

DarkMarcsun and JL are absolutely right. These cops think they are in an episode of Starsky and Hutch or something and they are operating in yawnerville. We have these uber SWAT military vehicles, their own show "ON PATROL" and over the top hand to hand combat tactics in front of Gelsens! It is like they are being glorified for this behavior. Either this TUDOR guy was scared, or trying to show off for his other cop buddies. This isn't Escape from New York, it is Santa Barbara. Controlling a situation doesn't have to mean beating the snot out of someone. While Tudor may have beat DeNunzio up, I think the SBPD is the one that got the PR black eye. They need to pull their heads out and put a substation on the east and west sides in the center of gangville, clean up the hoods, and put the high profile doughnuts (ON PATROL) down for awhile.

No surprise here. Nobody actually thought that the DA & Sanchez would do the right thing, did they?

I have zero tolerance for drinking and driving. I live in the Santa Ynez Valley, which is nothing more than one big bar. Our area markets relentlessly on behalf of the wine industry, inserting advertising for wine into every aspect of life whether it's a community event or a fundraiser for a day care center. Everything, and I DO mean everything, is always tied into the brand of the wine industry. We are a company town 100% thru and thru, by, for and about the wine industry to the exclusion of all else.

Thus, I see firsthand the results of the customers who pour into the Valley on a daily basis, mostly over San Marcos Pass, to stumble from one wine bar to another "tasting" and now thanks to the Governator in one of his final fauxs-pas before leaving office, swilling down wine by the glass and bottle onsite. Then it's off to the next wine bar. In Solvang alone we have 30 at last count, and growing daily. Los Olivos is nothing BUT a bar now, having squeezed out nearly all the businesses that aren't alcohol-related.

Then these folks get behind the wheel and head over the Pass back home to SB & LA, causing accidents and fear all the way. And we have to share the roads with them, like it or not. After all, we can't say "no" to the corporate juggernaut masquerading as hometown family farms that is the wine industry, can we?

So, yeah...I have zero tolerance for drinking and driving. At ALL. EVER. If DeNunzio was DUI, then he needs to be in jail, receive a stiff sentence, lose his license, etc...and frankly I'd like to see his car seized as well...like what happens to poor people who get caught sleeping in their vehicles and end up in jail for whatever reason.

That said: the cop was out of line. To those whom much is given, much is expected. When you are granted the confidence of the people to ensure the laws of the land are obeyed by all, it is incumbent upon you to always behave in a manner above and beyond that of an ordinary citizen. You don't get to lose your temper, go off on people, taze them, shoot them, and beat them up just because you're having a bad day or the suspect is a pain in the posterior or in gangbanger parlance, didn't "show respect". Once you drop down to that level, you lose all moral authority, and this is why the public has decreasing trust or respect for law enforcement.

The neighborhood cop used to be someone who was A: from the neighborhood and B: a trusted and beloved figure. Now in many cases s/he is some angry, resentful, paranoid, control-freak stranger with a chip on their shoulder and deadly weapons on their belt. The prolific gangbanger problem doesn't help this situation and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy not much different than the shootout at the OK Corral.

I am not at all surprised at the system protecting its own, even in the face of such damning evidence. The video will be doctored before it's shown to the public to ensure that the brutalizing cop looks innocent and the suspect looks like a maniac. This is why the public has not seen it; editors are busy working on it, as the foxes are looking after the henhouse.

There is no objectivity here; this situation is being handled by friends of friends who will make sure that abusive cop never sees one bit of consequence for his behavior. One day he'll kill someone, and everyone will be wringing their hands asking how this could happen; it's inevitable.

I avoid SB like the plague for a number of reasons, mostly related to overcrowding, cost, and generally aggressive behavior on the part of all the rats scurrying about in basic survival mode. This is just another reason to stay out of that area; rogue cops and a Chief assisted by the DA who protect them.

I've read this story reported by several different news agencies looking a description of the alleged "resistance". According to the PD he wasn't complying with verbal commands. So let me get this straight--it's SBPD policy to beat the crap out of you, break your ribs & your nose, if for ignoring them? It doesn't require an aggressive act to receive this type of aggression? And this is policy? I have a hearing disability--maybe it's time for me to move.

Exactly what I was about to post regarding an either/or situation tho after seeing the video I felt less sympathy for the victim than for the person I feel was guilty but like in a moment of madness kinda way. The officer is probably way overworked. Which one is scarier, the drunk driver or the possibly overworked officer who just snapped. You see despite all my criticisms of the DA's office I still like to think the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt. If my hypotheses is true no problems have been solved.

During the last 41 days a lot sure has changed in regards to who would be investigated and what charges were warranted based on the events of October 21st 2011. Previously the police department had stated that there would be an investigation by the department, to determine if ‘Excessive force was used during the arrest. In fact the following Monday District Attorney Joyce Dudley told Noozhawk that she spoke with Santa Barbara police officers and her own staff about the incident Sunday and again on Monday. “It’s my understanding that once SBPD completes its investigation, all reports related to this incident will be sent to my office,” she said, adding that she hasn’t been told when this will happen.“ Of course as we all know now no type of investigation was every performed by anyone. At the time D.A. Dudley stated that when this information is received by my office, we will carefully investigate all allegations,” she told Noozhawk. “All of us in law enforcement take allegations of excessive force, as well as allegations of obstructing or resisting a police officer, very seriously; hence, we will treat this matter with the integrity and thoroughness it deserves.”

Of course as we all are now aware Chief Sanchez claimed that after his review of the video showing the arrest, no such investigation was needed. So than I must ask why was the District Attorney and her office informing the public that they were waiting on an investigation by his department? Now I have been told by several of MY FRIENDS in law enforcement that Chief Sanchez is circumventing standard police procedures AGAIN for an indecent of this type and that the public should demand a full investigation. I will of course be reviewing the video in full in order to compare the footage against what was previously reported by the media. I have so many thoughts right now but let me close with this.

Amen on the inbreeding in the DA/PD departments. It would have been great to have heard the results (as per the broken promise) of an official/non-whitewashed investigation. Now, I'll take more credence from any shaky eyewitness over that of Chief Sanchez.

The slowed-down video captioning was CYA-lame as it could be.... How 'bout.... "Now, after immediately throwing the unsuspecting tipsy man to the ground and assaulting this hardened violent criminal with his fists, he has then tasered the dangerous scofflaw 13 times (give or take)".

The cop did a very bad thing, and he ought to be taken to task for it. Soon, the Court of Public Opinion will be served more-properly by the man's lawyer suing the heck out of the City, the SBPD, and hopefully Officer Tudor. Too bad us taxpayers will need to pay for it all.

With the D.A.'s decision not to file charges against DeNunzio for resisting arrest, Officer Tudor's reckless behavior during the arrest will cost the City of Santa Barbara several hundred thousand dollars in a civil lawsuit if it goes to trial. The city will try to settle out of court and should be happy if they are lucky enough to get out of this for $100,000.

KV-The drunk is scarier. Even scarier is that I kind of agree with your nutty Progressive self with the assessment that the DA and Cam are trying to get it both ways by substantiating the tazing but not pressing charges for resisting.Don't ignore direct orders from cops.Train the cops better so they don't need to go through this much struggle to restrain a middle aged drunk that is not vociferously fighting back.